State Of Washington, Res/cross-appellant v. Jesus Solis-vazquez, App/cross-respondent
47593-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- In December 2014 police stopped a car in Cowlitz County with Hadlock (driver), Slape (front passenger), Solis-Vazquez (rear passenger), and another rear passenger called “Delo.” Two baggies containing ~61.4 grams of methamphetamine were found under the driver’s seat where Solis-Vazquez sat behind the driver; two additional 25.4 g baggies were found under a nearby tractor-trailer where Delo was last seen.
- Officers found four firearms in the vehicle: a loaded semiautomatic under the front passenger seat, two loaded magazines and a loaded semiautomatic behind the front passenger seat, and an unloaded .38 revolver in a paper bag between the rear seats (bag opening pointed toward Solis-Vazquez).
- Solis-Vazquez gave a false passport, repeatedly reached toward the car floor after orders to keep his hands up, fled on foot, violently resisted arrest, and had $1,933 in small bills on him.
- Charged with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine; information alleged that Solis-Vazquez or an accomplice was armed with each of the four firearms. Jury convicted on the drug count and found four firearm enhancements true. Trial court later vacated two enhancements for the front-seat firearms; State cross-appealed.
- Key contested legal matters on appeal: whether deputy’s opinion testimony that everyone in the car knew about the drugs was improper and prejudicial; sufficiency of evidence supporting all four firearm enhancements; accomplice-liability instruction and alleged prosecutorial misconduct/ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Solis-Vazquez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / impact of Deputy Spaulding’s testimony that all occupants knew about the drugs | Even if the testimony was improper, the untainted evidence was overwhelming so any error was harmless | The deputy’s opinion invaded the jury’s province and likely affected the verdict; error not harmless | Assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong circumstantial evidence of possession with intent to deliver |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support firearm enhancements for back-seat firearms (Delo) | Circumstantial evidence showed Delo and Solis-Vazquez were accomplices, both had access to large drug quantities and firearms, and acted together (reaching, flight) | No direct evidence they worked together; thus enhancements for back-seat guns should fail | Sufficient evidence for jury to find accomplice liability and to support back-seat firearm enhancements |
| State cross-appeal: sufficiency to support front-seat firearm enhancements (Hadlock/Slape) | A rational jury could infer Hadlock or Slape (or both) were accomplices: visible drug residue in dashboard, seat-switching, access to front guns, and reaching/flight behavior | Trial court correctly vacated enhancements due to insufficient evidence tying front-seat occupants as accomplices | There was substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings; trial court erred in vacating those two enhancements — remand for resentencing |
| Accomplice-liability instruction & prosecutorial conduct / counsel performance | Instruction matched statute and WPIC; prosecutor’s inferences in closing were reasonable; failures to object did not prejudice defendant | Instruction improper; prosecutor argued facts not in evidence; failure to object was ineffective assistance | Instruction was proper; prosecutor’s inferences were permissible; counsel’s failure to object was not prejudicial given overwhelming untainted evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. State, 174 Wn.2d 884 (general standard for constitutional review)
- Kirkman v. State, 159 Wn.2d 918 (harmless error framework)
- Watt v. State, 160 Wn.2d 626 (harmless error beyond reasonable doubt standard)
- Graham v. State, 130 Wn.2d 711 (flight and furtive gestures as circumstantial evidence of guilt)
- Allen v. State, 182 Wn.2d 364 (accomplice knowledge may be proven circumstantially)
- Walker v. State, 182 Wn.2d 463 (unanimity not required as to mode of participation between principal and accomplice)
- Rich v. State, 184 Wn.2d 897 (sufficiency review standard)
- Fisher v. State, 165 Wn.2d 727 (scope of prosecutor argument and reversal standard for misconduct)
- Lindsay v. State, 180 Wn.2d 423 (waiver and review of prosecutorial misconduct)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)